Sunday, June 28, 2009

The leaking begins

A secret report by Army bosses to be presented to the Iraq war inquiry blames Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for the botched occupation of the country.

The dossier - prepared for ex-military chief General Sir Mike Jackson - criticises then Chancellor Mr Brown for withholding funds to rebuild Basra for FIVE months after our troops went in. And the 100-page document attacks Mr Blair for "uncritically" accepting flawed US plans for the March 2003 invasion, which led to tens of thousands of deaths, including those of 179 British troops.

The report - Stability Operations in Iraq - will not be officially made public because the inquiry's head, Sir John Chilcot, ruled all documents will remain secret.

But the contents have been leaked to the Sunday Mirror.

We can reveal that a lack of cash for the operation meant British troops sent to fight in Iraq:

Used mobile phones to communicate in combat because radios did not work.

Were forced to leave wounded soldiers on the battlefield for an average of two-and-half hours before getting them to a field hospital.

Were in danger of breaching the Geneva Convention by having so few resources. The convention says occupiers must provide vital services such as humanitarian aid and water.

In a broadside at the then PM Mr Blair, the report says the battle for the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis was lost because of a lack of planning and the five-month delay in starting to rebuild their country.

It says: "The failures to plan... seriously hindered Coalition chances of stabilising post-Saddam Iraq. The lack of improvements to essential services and the standard of living together with disorder meant many locals who were 'sitting on the fence' were not persuaded to support the Coalition."

It was only after riots in Basra in August 2003 that Mr Brown agreed to release £500million for reconstruction work, the report says.

And it contradicts six years of Government spin which claimed ordinary Iraqis backed the "liberation", saying troops "found themselves fighting insurgents without clear support (from local people)".

The Foreign Secretary also acknowledged that ministers had been forced to drastically change their position by the force of public opinion.

Mr Miliband, the first minister to make the controversial announcement that evidence would heard behind closed doors and then initially left to weather the storm of protest which followed said: "The unanimity of view that actually we need public sessions for this inquiry is something that the Government has listened to."

Asked if Gordon Brown had "got it wrong" when he insisted last week that the inquiry would be behind closed doors, Mr Miliband said: "We obviously did. There is no question about that. No one is arguing that we changed our position."

The Independent revealed that senior military officers such as General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the Army at the time of the Iraq invasion and Lord Butler and Lord Hutton, who had headed previous inquiries related to the war, wanted the hearings to be in the public. Former prime minister, Sir John Major, was among those who also opposed a secret hearing.

Mr Brown was forced to let Sir John Chilcot decide on the terms of the inquiry and Sir John stated that in his view it was "essential" that as much of the evidence should be heard in public as possible.

A humiliating Commons defeat for the Government on the issue was averted on Wednesday when Mr Miliband withdrew another of the initial Downing Street plans for the inquiry – that it would not apportion blame – and agreed that the final report could "praise or blame whoever it likes".

The retreat helped the Government see off a backbench revolt over the inquiry arrangements, although its majority was still slashed to 39.

A Tory motion demanding a re-think and a Commons vote on the inquiry's terms of reference was backed by 19 Labour MPs.

Earlier, Downing Street denied that Mr Brown had struck a deal with Lord Mandelson to spare Tony Blair from having to give evidence to the inquiry in public as the price of saving his premiership.

There had been claims that Lord Mandelson had won an "explicit" assurance from Mr Brown that the inquiry would be fully private and that it would be "manageable".

However, both Lord Mandelson and Mr Brown were said to have been taken by surprise by the strength of the opposition from senior military and Whitehall figures to a closed inquiry.

The Prime Minister's spokesman dismissed the report as "flawed", insisting that Mr Brown had not entered into any deals. We would certainly deny the suggestion that the Prime Minister has done any sort of deal," the spokesman said. We are not having the inquiry in secret so the whole premise of the article does seem to fall down on that basic point."

Hague - The June 24 debate

News Wed 24th Jun 2009

Iraq inquiry move was 'monumental mess'William Hague has accused the prime minister of making a "monumental mess" of the proposed inquiry into the Iraq War.

Addressing MPs during a Conservative-led debate in the Commons, the shadow foreign secretary criticised the government for inadequately consulting with opposition parties before announcing the terms of the inquiry.

He said the chairman of the inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, was now engaged in a process of consultation that if the prime minster that was "doing his job properly" would have been carried out beforehand.

Gordon Brown initially indicated to the Commons that evidence would be heard in private, but has since backtracked and suggested that Sir John could decide to hold public sessions.

Hague said the prime minister was now busy performing a U-turn much like a "learner driver doing a six point turn having started off the wrong way down the motorway".

Drawing comparison to the Franks inquiry which followed the Falklands war, he said the then Conservative government engaged in "wide and lengthy" consultation with opposition parties.

The shadow foreign secretary said the proposed Iraq inquiry was not "remotely" like the Franks inquiry, except that it would be held behind closed doors.

"They decided to take to take one aspect that suited them, that it was held in secret," he said.

Hague also criticised the proposed membership of the inquiry, branding it "too narrow" as "some experience of ministerial office" was desirable.

"Not a single member has high level governmental or military experience," he said.

It was also "unnatural and unnecessary" to impose a prohibition on apportioning blame on the inquiry.

The way the inquiry was announced was a "recipe for confusion rather than clarity", he concluded.

Rejecting the criticism, David Miliband said he was confident Sir John would deliver an inquiry of "insight and value".

Quoting remarks made by Hague to the Commons in March 2008, the foreign secretary said the inquiry was "not a trial or impeachment, but an effort to learn for the future".

The inquiry is not to "establish civil or criminal liability", he added.

And Miliband defended the members of the inquiry as "outstanding figures in their respective fields".

"The five people appointed to the inquiry are there because of their ability to sift material and ask hard and probing questions," he stated.

The foreign secretary added that the inquiry would be held in public "as much as possible", but challenged on the specifics he said he was "not going to put a percentage on it".

But Miliband noted that it was the intention of Sir John to conduct as much of the inquiry as possible in public. "We do support the approach that Sir John has set out," he added.

For the Liberal Democrats, David Heath said his party wanted an inquiry that was not designed to "protect either the former prime minister or anybody else" but one that is "capable and arriving at the facts".

It was quite clear that consultation on the inquiry was "fastidious in its inadequacy", he added.

Heath said Sir John had been placed in an "impossible situation" of having to consult after the government announcement had been made.

Sir John has indicated he will summon Brown and Tony Blair to give evidence in public.

But he has so far given no indication of the timings of his hearings, which means he could hold politically sensitive sessions after the general election.

The inquiry into the Iraq war being conducted by Sir John Chilcot will be able to attribute blame, David Miliband said today.

The foreign secretary made the concession in a debate called by the Tories, who are unhappy with the terms of the inquiry announced by Gordon Brown last week.

Miliband also said that he thought it would be possible for witnesses to give evidence to the inquiry on oath.

The prime minister said the inquiry would not apportion blame when he first announced it. He also said that it would take evidence in private and that witnesses would not have to give evidence on oath.

With many Labour MPs threatening to vote with the Tories in today's debate because they want the inquiry to be more open, Brown unveiled a U-turn on Monday when he released a letter from Chilcot saying that as much evidence as possible would be heard in public. Brown welcomed this in a letter he sent to Chilcot that was also released to the media.

Today, when pressed on Brown's decision to tell the inquiry not to apportion blame, Miliband told MPs that members of the inquiry would be "entirely free to write their own report".

He said the inquiry had not been set up "to establish civil or criminal liability". But that would not stop it making judgements.

"Everything beyond that is within its remit: it can praise or blame whoever it likes, it is free to write its own report at every stage," he said.

Miliband also said that Chilcot thought there were ways that he could address the matter of getting witnesses to give evidence on oath. Some MPs said he would not have the power to do this, because the inquiry will not be a statutory inquiry, but Miliband said that this would not be a problem.

"I am reliably informed that you do not need a statutory power to administer an oath," he said.

Opening the debate for the Tories, William Hague urged Miliband to set out detailed terms of reference for the inquiry and called on ministers to apologise for the "monumental mess" that had been made of setting it up.

Hague said Chilcot had been forced to make a number of concessions on behalf of the government since the prime minister's announcement, including the appointment of a military adviser and the belief that much of the evidence should be heard in public.

Hague said that in declaring the inquiry would not report before a general election, the government had chosen timing that was "utterly cynical and politically motivated".

The initial membership was "too narrow", consultation was "inadequate and unnecessarily short" and the only element similar to the Franks inquiry into the Falklands war that had been retained was that it would be behind closed doors, he said.

Today Brown's spokesman said the prime minister would be willing to give evidence in public, provided national security considerations were met.

Hague welcomed the U-turns but called on ministers to set out more detail on what would be expected from the probe.

The shadow foreign secretary said: "The policy on secrecy has been changed. The policy on military expertise has started to be addressed but has not been fully addressed. The chairman of the inquiry has begun a process of consultation suggesting more changes could be on the way and they should be on the way.

"And so now an inquiry that is seriously overdue cannot even get off to a clean start, but will spend an unspecified period of time adjusting its remit – a recipe for confusion rather than clarity.

"We appreciate the efforts of Sir John Chilcot to make up for the deficiencies of the initial announcement, but the government's handling of this issue means that as things currently stand the inquiry starts its work with far less credibility in the eyes of the public or parliament than it should really have had."

Hague called for a debate on the terms of reference, said the committee should have a more diverse membership including military and ministerial experience, asked whether the committee would be able to produce an interim report and access all relevant records of meetings between the British and American governments, and urged ministers to confirm a commitment to openness.

A number of Labour MPs, including Paul Flynn (Newport West), David Winnick (Walsall North) and Gordon Prentice (Pendle) also criticised elements of the inquiry as it was originally established.

Brian Jones - crucial questions

As the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war stutters into existence, it already looks as confused and uncertain as everything that has gone before in relation to the war.

Yesterday's announcement by its chairman hardly clarifies the degree of openness we can expect.

The truth about the decision to go to war is certainly something we must tackle — yet little has been said about the failure of four previous inquiries to resolve the issue.

I gave evidence in open court to the inquiry by Lord Hutton into the sad death of my colleague, Dr David Kelly. It was a testing experience.

The Hutton process allowed unprecedented public disclosure about the inner workings of Whitehall which surely set a standard of openness that Chilcot cannot ignore.

We should not be discouraged by the disappointing final report, because Hutton was constrained by tight terms of reference. The new inquiry, without such constraints, has the potential to draw more precise conclusions on the broader issues.

In this regard it could do no better than to co-opt Hutton's excellent counsel, James Dingemans, who recognised in his closing remarks that there was much more to be made of the evidence taken.

Mr Brown's fears about the cost and complication of legal representation might be overcome if Parliament could find a way to invest the privilege it bestows on select committee witnesses to the Chilcot inquiry.

Then the Butler Review, of which Sir John Chilcot was a member, took place in camera and produced a report that was good in parts. I gave evidence to it in much less terrifying circumstances.

However, it was also a less satisfactory experience because I do not know what else it heard and saw, and consequently whether I could have contributed more. Also, I did not know until long after it reported in July 2004 that the review was determined to do what it could to preserve public confidence in British intelligence, which hardly seems appropriate to its task.

Although Chilcot's broad terms of reference are welcome, because it has the power to probe where it wishes, this brings a danger that it could fail to find a focus.

To counter this, and to bring public opinion with it, Chilcot would do well to establish, clearly and openly, a number of critical questions.

It needs, for instance, to establish what was the “clever plan” to wrong-foot Saddam Hussein, as mentioned in papers sent from Washington to Downing Street in March 2002, that was needed to convince people there was a legal basis for toppling him.

It must ask why Tony Blair's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in 2002 and 2003 did not reflect the uncertainties we now know were in the assessments by the Joint Intelligence Committee, and in briefings by Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6.

It must establish how Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard knew that the weapons referred to in the “45 minute” intelligence were battlefield weapons rather than missiles. The intelligence I saw did not say this.

If they knew it, why did they not insist that information was clearly stated in the relevant JIC assessments and the September dossier for which they were responsible?

And we need to know why Parliament was not informed that certain critical intelligence had already been withdrawn when it became the subject of comment by Tony Blair in the House.

That we do not yet know the answers to these and many other significant questions is a consequence of a decision to cover up the full truth.

Who made that decision and whether it concealed incompetence or deliberate deception is something that Chilcot must answer.

Gordon Brown and Tony Blair face being questioned in public over their roles in the run-up to the Iraq war after the chairman of the independent inquiry indicated that he is to summon the prime minister and his predecessor to give evidence.

In a setback for Brown, who had hoped the inquiry would be held in private, Sir John Chilcot has ruled that all witnesses will be expected to give evidence in public. This will apply across the board unless there are "compelling reasons" in a small number of cases for evidence to be heard in private. This would be if evidence could jeopardise national security or upset allies.

The decision by Chilcot opens up the prospect that Blair and Brown will be cross-examined on their roles in the Iraq war during the build-up to the general election that is expected to take place next year. Chilcot is not giving any indication on the timings of his hearings, which means that he could defer politically sensitive appearances by Brown and his predecessor until after the election.

The move to open up his hearings, which came on the eve of a Commons debate tomorrow on the inquiry, shows that a wholesale change of the terms has been carried out since the inquiry was established by the prime minister last week. The decision to summon Brown and Blair for public hearings was disclosed by Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, who met Chilcot today on privy council terms. Chilcott held a separate meeting with David Cameron on the same terms.

In a letter to Chilcot, Clegg wrote: "I was pleased to see how much progress has been made from the initial position set out by the prime minister last week regarding the process of the inquiry … It was also good to hear you confirm that you will be seeking evidence from Tony Blair and others in high office at the time, and would want their evidence to be held in public except in very limited circumstances."

Cameron, who asked Chilcot to summon Brown before the inquiry, was more guarded in his remarks. Tory sources said they were "hopeful" that the prime minister would be summoned before Chilcot.

The prospect of public grillings for Brown and Blair shows how the prime minister's plans for the inquiry have been dramatically changed since it was established last week. On 15 June Brown told MPs that the inquiry would be modelled on the Franks inquiry into the 1982 Falklands war, which met in private. He said: "I believe that that will also ensure that evidence given by serving and former ministers, military officers and officials is as full and candid as possible."

The prime minister announced last week that Chilcot would chair the five-strong committee of non-political privy counsellors. Clegg said that Chilcot had agreed to a series of other changes:

• Expert assessors, including retired senior military officers, public and constitutional law experts and experts on post-war reconstruction, will support the five members of the inquiry. These experts could cross-examine witnesses.

• Chilcot has indicated that he remains open to the idea of publishing an interim report, according to Clegg. The Lib Dems and Tories want an interim report to be published before the general election. Chilcot, whose inquiry is not due to report until July 2010, is expected to be highly cautious about publishing on the eve of the election.

• Witnesses will not, as expected, be required to swear an oath. But Clegg says Chilcot has indicated that he will specify to witnesses in writing and verbally that their evidence must be truthful.

The signals from Chilcot – likely to be accepted by the government, which has given the former Northern Ireland Office permanent secretary a free hand – should reduce the chances of a defeat for No 10 in tomorrow's Commons debate.

Government sources said they were relaxed with Chilcot's plans. "We have always said we would fully co-operate with the inquiry," a senior source said.

I was pleased to see how much progress has been made from the initial position set out by the Prime Minister last week regarding the process of the inquiry.

In particular, I was pleased to hear that you will hold sessions in public unless there is a “compelling” reason to do otherwise; that your list of those requested to give evidence will be “comprehensive”; that expert assessors will be appointed to the inquiry to give the panel support in the areas of military process, public and constitutional law and development aid; that you remain open to the idea of publishing an interim report; and that you will specify to witnesses in writing and verbally that their evidence must be truthful and complete to the best of their recollection. It was also good to hear you confirm that you will be seeking evidence from Tony Blair and others in high office at the time, and would want their evidence to be held in public except in very limited circumstances.

These changes to the original proposals set out by the Prime Minister clearly improve the inquiry and make it more likely that it will secure public support. However, I still believe there are further steps that should be taken to improve the inquiry further.

First, as it does not seem likely that the membership of the inquiry panel can be changed at this stage, I believe it is vital that you add to your team someone with high level experience of cross-examination. The appointment of a Counsel to the Inquiry to lead the questioning would enable the inquiry to probe witnesses far more effectively.

Second, I would like to restate my belief that an interim report, covering the run-up to the war, would be of enormous benefit and should be published before the next general election.

Third, while I understand that, as this is not a judicial inquiry, you cannot require participants to take a legal oath, I do believe it is essential for witnesses to make a verbal affirmation of their intent to speak the truth.

Finally, there must be a clear, transparent process by which decisions are taken as to what evidence is held in private. You said this morning you would set out published criteria, and I look forward to seeing them, ideally as part of a consultative process before a final decision is taken. My recommendation would be that you put forward very restrictive criteria: only evidence which would have a clear impact on national security should be kept hidden from public scrutiny. Personal embarrassment or inconvenience cannot be a reason to hold evidence behind closed doors.

We talked this morning about a separate group of witnesses: those who come forward of their own volition, rather than being invited to give evidence by the inquiry. This would apply to those who have evidence or experience of which you would not otherwise be aware, likely to be those in more junior roles within the government and its agencies.

I understand your view that some of them might only be willing to come forward if their evidence was confidential and that, therefore, it is fair for you to give them wider scope for privacy. I accept that it may be right to offer preferential treatment to those who would never have come to your attention otherwise. However, this must not occur at the cost of openness for the list of “invited” witnesses, which should remain as full and comprehensive as possible. I would strongly object to any exemption from openness offered to junior officials becoming the wider rule.

You have also expressed some concern that “invited” officials could automatically be entitled to legal representation. This should not be a reason to restrict the openness of the proceedings. Some legal representation is, in my view, a small price to pay for the greater prize of openness and legitimacy. The possibility of opening the door to legal representation must not be used as a reason not to follow through on your commitment to be “comprehensive” in setting out the list of witnesses you intend to hear from.

Brown to Sir John

Gordon Brown has replied to Sir John:

(Click for enlargement)

(Sir John's previous letter to Gordon Brown does not appear to be in the public domain, although it is referred to throughout the media, as below. If it becomes available and I can find it, it will be posted here.)

Large parts of Iraq inquiry to be heard in public

Large sections of the Iraq war inquiry war will be held in public, its chairman said yesterday, in a decision that will cause embarrassment for Gordon Brown.

Sir John Chilcot told the prime minister it was "essential to hold as much of the proceedings of the inquiry as possible in public".

The move is further humiliation for Mr Brown, who initially said the hearing would be in secret. He was then forced to ask Sir John to consider holding some evidence in public following criticism from MPs, peers and military leaders.

The Conservatives said the prime minister had executed a "U-turn in slow motion" and accused him of a "climb-down of massive proportions".

Sir also appeared to rule out an interim report, which could have been published before the next general election, further fuelling suggestions that the timing of the inquiry was designed to report back in the next parliament.

In a letter to Mr Brown, Sir John said he would consult with opposition party leaders and senior MPs before deciding the exact format of the inquiry.

But he told the Prime Minister: "More broadly, I believe it will be essential to hold as much of the proceedings of the inquiry as possible in public, consistent with the need to protect national security and to ensure and enable complete candour in the oral and written evidence from witnesses."

It still remains unclear whether Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, and other sensitive witnesses such as secret service officers, will be made to give evidence in open, or even under oath.

Sir John did not specify what he meant by "as much as possible" being held in public, his choice of language leaving it open for such evidence to be heard in private.

Mr Blair, who took Britain into the conflict, had lobbied for the inquiry to be held behind closed doors.

He apparently said that the hearings would become a "show trial" if they were held in public.

In response to Sir John's letter, Mr Brown wrote: "I believe your proposals will manage to meet both the need not to compromise national security but also enable the independent inquiry also to hold public sessions helping to build public confidence."

William Hague, shadow Foreign Secretary, said: "The Prime Minister has been executing a u-turn in slow motion ever since announcing the Inquiry. Characteristically he could not bring himself to confirm this in Parliament but has passed the buck to Sir John Chilcot.

"This is a climb-down of massive proportions from the Prime Minister, whose own proposals for the Iraq Inquiry were so ill-thought through and hastily executed that they have attracted nothing but condemnation from all quarters."

Sir John also did not use the word "oath" in his letter, instead referring to how best a "formal undertaking can be given by witnesses that their contributions will be complete, truthful and accurate".

However, he did agree for the need to give the families of those who died or were "seriously affected" by the conflict "an early opportunity to express their views about the nature and procedures of the inquiry, and to express them either in public or in private as they prefer".

"That will be important in helping us to decide how to go about the task, and explain what we are going to do," he wrote.

Sir John Major,the former Prime Minister, senior military figures including ex-head of the Army Sir Mike Jackson and the head of the last official inquiry on the war, Lord Butler of Brockwell, were among critics who forced Mr Brown into a partial climbdown over openness.

Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary in 2003, has said he has "no problem" with giving evidence in public.

On Wednesday the prime minister is due to face a Commons vote on a Conservative motion that evidence given to the Iraq inquiry should be heard in public "whenever possible".

Monday, June 22, 2009

Three phase inquiry

Sir John Chilcot, the former civil servant entrusted to conduct an independent inquiry into the Iraq war, said on Monday that as much of it as possible must be conducted in public.

In a move that formally reverses the government’s decision last week to hold the inquest in secret, Sir John wrote to Gordon Brown saying it was “essential” to hold as much of the proceedings as possible in open session, “consistent with the need to protect national security”.

Writing to Mr Brown, Sir John spelled out for the first time how he intends to conduct the inquiry. He indicated that there will be three phases to his investigation, which is expected to last at least a year.

The first phase will be a session with the families of soldiers who were killed or injured in the Iraq war. Sir John said the families of victims should have “an early opportunity to express their views about the nature and procedures of the inquiry, and to express them either in public or in private, as they prefer”.

The second phase will be evidence-gathering sessions in which Sir John and the inquiry team will go through the huge quantity of official paperwork relating to the war over an eight-year period. Sir John made clear that this phase would necessarily be in private and establish the inquiry’s line of questioning when it meets witnesses.

Finally, there will be evidence sessions from key witnesses which, as far as possible, will be in public. Sir John emphasised in his letter to Mr Brown the need “to ensure and enable complete candour in the oral and written evidence from witnesses”.

One of the criticisms made by senior figures in the armed forces last week was that none of the members of the inquiry team – which will have to judge how Britain conducted operations in Iraq – is from a military background.

Sir John said, however, that the inquiry will be assisted by “expert assessors at the highest level, including in military, legal, and international development and reconstruction matters”.

Sir John added he had already begun to identify people who might be ­willing to serve in that capacity.

Some MPs last week suggested Sir John should produce an interim report, possibly on the origins of the Iraq war, that could come out before the next election, expected in May 2010.

Sir John effectively ruled this out, however.

“It seems to me clear that the causes and effects of particular phases of these events cannot simply be divided up so as to separate clearly one period from another,” he said.

Thank you for your letter of 17 June about the Iraq Inquiry. I am grateful for your assurance of the Government’s commitment to a thorough and independent inquiry, and for the steps that have already been taken with former and current Ministers, and Departments, to ensure full cooperation, transparency and access to government documents. I welcome the fact that I and my colleagues are free to decide independently how best to fulfil our remit.

I am for my part wholly committed to the search for the lessons to be learned for the future from events and experience of the last seven and more years, to uphold the integrity of the process of inquiry and the need to ensure public confidence in it, and to ensure complete candour and openness from witnesses while protecting national security. I will indeed, as you suggest, examine how best, given the non-judicial nature of the Inquiry, a formal undertaking can be given by witnesses that their contributions will be complete, truthful and accurate.

If a judicial inquiry, or a statutory Tribunal of Inquiry, had been established, then I would not have been asked to take on this responsibility. That would have required an extended process, with legal representation for the tribunal, witnesses, and other interested parties. That is not what we have been asked to conduct. To find without extended delay the key lessons for the future from the Iraq experience is however something I believe is well worthwhile.

I have as you suggested begun a process of consultation with the Leaders of the main Opposition parties, and with the Chairs of the relevant Parliamentary Select Committees (Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Public Administration as well as the Intelligence and Security Committee). I see this as helping the Inquiry to decide how best we can structure our procedures to fulfil our remit and meet the objectives we have been set. When these consultations have been completed, I expect to be in a position, having taken them fully into account, to say in more detail how we will propose to take the Inquiry forward.

As part of that, it will, I wholeheartedly agree, be essential to ensure that the families of those who gave their lives in Iraq, or were seriously affected by the conflict, have an early opportunity to express their views about the nature and procedures of the Inquiry, and to express them either in public or in private as they prefer, That will be important in helping us to decide how to go about the task, and explain what we are going to do.

I have also concluded that the Inquiry will need expert assessors at the highest level, including in military, legal, and international development and reconstruction matters, and I have already begun to identify people who may be willing to serve in that capacity. Then, when we have settled on how we are going to go about the Inquiry, I am sure it is right that we should explain this in open session.

More broadly, I believe it will be essential to hold as much of the proceedings of the Inquiry as possible in public, consistent with the need to protect national security and to ensure and enable complete candour in the oral and written evidence from witnesses.

One important point which has not received much public notice so far is that examining and analysing the very large body of existing documentary evidence, stretching over seven or more years, will necessarily occupy a significant part of the time available to the Inquiry, especially in the early stages, and by definition that part of the process cannot be conducted in public sessions. The results of that examination and analysis will, however, be crucial in guiding the selection of witnesses and the detailed questions that will then need to be answered. I expect our report will publish all the relevant evidence except where national security considerations prevent that.

A particular suggestion which has been made is that the Inquiry might make an interim report, possibly on the run-up to the war, or up to the moment when the coalition assumed responsibility for Iraq’s internal affairs. While I do not rule out the possibility, it seems to me clear that the causes and effects of particular phases of these events cannot simply be divided up so as to separate clearly one period from another. To take one obvious example, the existence or otherwise of weapons of mass destruction could not be established with any reliability until well after the conflict phase, after the work of the Iraq Survey Group and others had gone as far as it could, while before the event the outstanding possibility had significant implications for the military deployment into the initial conflict phase.

Because we will need to give careful attention to what comes out of the consultation processes I have outlined, I am, as I said, not yet in a position to state in more detail exactly how we will conduct the Inquiry. It is however already clear to me that as much as possible of the work of the Inquiry as is consistent with fulfilling our remit should be conducted, or explained, in public.

Sir John Chilcot - "mainly open" inquiry

The chairman of the Iraq inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, has said as much evidence as possible should be held in public.

In a letter to Gordon Brown, Sir John said it would be "essential" to conduct a mainly open process.

Mr Brown faced criticism for announcing that it would take place in private and later said Sir John could decide to hold public sessions.

Jack Straw, foreign secretary in 2003, has said that he has "no problem" with giving evidence in public.

On Wednesday the prime minister is due to face a Commons vote on a Conservative motion that evidence given to the Iraq inquiry should be heard in public "whenever possible".

'Complete candour'

In his letter, Sir John said he would consult with opposition party leaders and senior MPs before settling on the inquiry's format.

But he told Mr Brown: "More broadly, I believe it will be essential to hold as much of the proceedings of the inquiry as possible in public, consistent with the need to protect national security and to ensure and enable complete candour in the oral and written evidence from witnesses."

Mr Brown had initially announced that the inquiry would be held in private, but then said some evidence could be taken in public following criticism.

Other ministers followed, with Mr Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time of the Iraq invasion, saying he would be prepared to testify publicly.

Transport Minister Sadiq Khan had also told the BBC's Politics Show that he suspected "many, many parts" of the inquiry would be conducted in public.

Children's Secretary Ed Balls also said that hearing some evidence in public would be a "good thing".

Downing Street and Tony Blair's spokesman have dismissed reports that the decision to hold the inquiry in private was prompted by pressure from the ex-prime minister.

Protest planned

The Stop the War Coalition has called a protest outside parliament at 2pm this Wednesday, demanding "No Whitewash, No Cover Up", in the Iraq enquiry.

The protest is timed to coincide with a debate in parliament on the enquiry.

Stop the War has stated, "The scandal over Gordon Brown's decision to hold the Iraq war inquiry in private has united in condemnation the most unlikely people, including MPs, peers in the House of Lords, military leaders, former civil servants, bereaved families and even Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's US ambassador at the time the decision was taken to go to war.

"The anger over this appalling decision has intensified with the revelation that Tony Blair was behind Brown's decision to have a completely secret inquiry."

Stop the War is also asking all its local groups and supporters to contact their MPs as a matter of urgency, by letter, telephone, email or fax, and urge them to support the call for a full public inquiry.

A Public Inquiry?

Brown set to abandon plans for secret inquiry following opposition criticism.

Gordon Brown is set to abandon plans to hold the forthcoming Iraq inquiry in secret after widespread criticism over his decision.

The government is likely to support the section of a Conservative motion arguing that the inquiry “should be wherever possible held in public”.

A series of ministers yesterday indicated that they believed large parts of the inquiry could be held in public.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said: “As Foreign Secretary at the time I have no problem with giving most of the evidence I have got to give in public.”

He said that Brown's decision to launch a private inquiry was largely based on the 1982 Franks Inquiry into the Falklands war, which was held behind closed doors.

“That was what they had been calling for time after time after time, and they dismissed other inquiries that had been held,” he told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show.

“Now, Franks was held in private exclusively. It was for that reason, no other, that Gordon Brown decided to do that.”

There are also concerns that witnesses will be less candid if the inquiry is open to the public. But Sadiq Khan, the transport minister, said: “I suspect there will be many, many parts of the inquiry held in public.”

It was reported yesterday that Brown's decision to hold a private inquiry was influenced by Tony Blair. The Observer reported that the former Prime Minister lobbied against a public inquiry because he feared he would be subjected to a “show trial”.

But a spokesman for Blair said: “This is a decision for the current Prime Minister, not the former one.”

Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, is said to have communicated Blair's anxieties to Brown. Yesterday the Northern Ireland Secretary, Shaun Woodward, confirmed that Blair had discussed the inquiry with O'Donnell.

“Of course the cabinet secretary discussed this with the former prime minister because he obviously will be one of the major witnesses who will be giving evidence to Sir John Chilcot's inquiry,” he said.

The inquiry will be chaired by Sir John Chilcot, a former senior civil servant in Northern Ireland, and will also include Sir Martin Gilbert, a major military historian; Sir Roderick Lyne, the former British ambassador to Moscow; Sir Lawrence Freedman, Professor of War Studies at King's College London and the crossbench peer Baroness Usha Prashar. It is unlikely to report before the next general election.

William Hague on Blair

The Iraq conflict is one of the most significant and controversial episodes in modern British history.

Even with the end of Britain's involvement in sight, serious questions about the war and its aftermath remain unanswered.

A total of 179 of our brave servicemen and women lost their lives, as did thousands of Iraqi citizens and hundreds

These are just some of the reasons why MPs from all sides, the families of the fallen and the country as a whole have called for an inquiry into the origins and conduct of Iraq war.

Last week the Government finally tried to answer those calls - but did so in a way that has led to an outcry.

The proposals fall down in four respects. First and foremost: Secrecy.

It is not just politicians who want to know the full story on Iraq, though they and Whitehall have most to learn from it, it is the British people and --most importantly - the families who lost their loved ones there.

It is clearly right that a matter of national importance should be conducted as transparently as possible.

Distinguished senior military officers-have said they would have no difficulty giving evidence in public. General Sir Mike Jackson, who was head of the Army during the Iraq invasion, said: 'I would have no problem at all in giving my evidence in public.'

The former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler has said 'there is no prospect that an inquiry conducted entirely in private can purge the national feeling of mistrust'.

Even former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer has said we need a more open inquiry.It has been alleged that the unnecessary secrecy of this inquiry is at the express request of Tony Blair. He is the last person who should be setting the rules for an inquiry that will largely be concerned with decisions and events during his time in office.

If the former head of the Army is happy to give evidence in public then the Prime Minister at the time should certainly be willing to so do so.

Few outside Downing Street ever imagined that in the 21st century an inquiry of this nature and importance would take place entirely behind closed doors.

Second, although its members are distinguished historians, commentators and public servants, the inquiry's composition still leaves a lot to be desired.

Not a single committee member has high-level military or government experience - there are no former Chiefs of Staff, no one with experience of Cabinet. Both are extraordinary omissions given that much of the inquiry's scope will be either military in dimension or concern the decision-making process at the highest levels of government.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Straw - "no problem" with openness

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said he has "no problem" giving evidence to the Iraq war inquiry in public.

Mr Straw, foreign secretary during the 2003 invasion, said he believed then-Prime Minster Tony Blair would also be ready to testify in an open hearing.

The government has been criticised for its decision to conduct the inquiry, which begins in July, in private.

Downing Street and Mr Blair's spokesman dismissed claims it was prompted by pressure from the ex-prime minister.

'Grand cover-up'

Mr Straw told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show that Sir John Chilcot - who will lead the inquiry - had indicated that it would be "mixed" between public and private sessions.

The justice secretary said he would be prepared to testify publicly on matters that did not relate to sensitive intelligence or that put the lives of British forces at risk.

Mr Straw said: "As foreign secretary at the time I have no problem with giving most of the evidence I have got to give in public.

"In fairness to Tony, he has given the equivalent of evidence in public scores and scores of time.

"I'm completely comfortable giving most of my evidence in public and I'm sure he is."

He added that the government had set up the probe along the lines of the Franks inquiry into the Falklands war in response to calls from the Conservatives.

But BBC political correspondent Vicky Young said pressure was building for the probe to be conducted publicly.

The Observer newspaper says Mr Blair urged Gordon Brown not to hold a public inquiry because he feared being subjected to a "show trial".

Before the inquiry was announced Mr Blair - who took Britain into the war in 2003 - is said by the paper to have put pressure on the prime minister via the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell.

The paper alleges Mr Blair did not want to give evidence in public, and under oath, about the use of intelligence and secret discussions held with ex-US president George W Bush during the run-up to the conflict.

Responding to the claims, a spokesman for Mr Blair said: "This is a decision for the current prime minister, not the former one."

A Downing Street spokesman said the report was "just plain wrong".

He added: "We have always been clear that we consulted a number of people before announcing the commencement of the inquiry, including former government figures.

"We are not going to get into the nature of those discussions."

But Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show that it appeared Mr Brown had been "dictated to by his predecessor".

Mr Clegg added: "If the inquiry is to have any legitimacy, the prime architect of the decision to go to war in Iraq alongside George Bush should give his evidence in public under oath.

"I think anything less will make people feel this is just a grand cover-up for, after all, what was the biggest foreign policy mistake this country has made since Suez."

The inquiry will start next month and aims to indentify "lessons learned".

When he announced it on Monday the prime minister said the inquiry would hear evidence in private so witnesses could be "as candid as possible".

But following widespread criticism Mr Brown later appeared to backtrack, saying it would be up to Sir John to decide which session of the inquiry could be held in public.

On Wednesday the prime minister is due to face a Commons vote on a Conservative motion that evidence given to the Iraq inquiry should be heard in public "whenever possible".

Tony Blair urged Gordon Brown to hold the independent inquiry into the Iraq war in secret because he feared that he would be subjected to a "show trial" if it were opened to the public, the Observer can reveal.

The revelation that the former prime minister, who led the country to war in March 2003, had intervened will fuel the anger of MPs, peers, military leaders and former civil servants, who were appalled by Brown's decision last week to order the investigation to be conducted behind closed doors.

Blair, who resisted pressure for a full public inquiry while he was prime minister, appears to have taken a deliberate decision not to express his view in person to Brown because he feared it might leak out.

Instead, messages were relayed through others to Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, who conveyed them to the prime minister in the days leading up to last week's inquiry announcement.

A Downing Street spokesman tonight said: "We have always been clear that we consulted a number of people before announcing the commencement of the inquiry, including former government figures. We are not going to get into the nature of those discussions."

Blair is believed to have been alarmed by the prospect that he might be asked to give evidence in public and under oath about the use of intelligence and about his numerous private discussions with US President George Bush at which the two leaders laid plans for war.

The Observer reveals that, six weeks before the war, at a meeting in Washington, the two leaders were forced to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second UN resolution legitimising military action.

Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U-2 reconnaissance aircraft, painted in UN colours, over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that, if Saddam fired at the planes, he would put the country in breach of UN resolutions and legitimise military action.

Tonight, Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, whose party opposed the war from the outset, said: "If this is true about Blair demanding secrecy, it is simply outrageous that an inquiry into the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez is being muzzled to suit the individual needs of the man who took us to war - Tony Blair."

Brown provoked uproar in the Commons on Monday when he announced the inquiry's scope, membership and remit and, following a chorus of protests from military leaders and former mandarins including former cabinet secretary Lord Butler, announced a partial retreat on Thursday, when he asked the inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, to consider opening a few sessions to the public.

But the move did nothing to reduce pressure for a total climbdown. Tonight, Brown appeared to be cornered as MPs of all parties prepared for a Commons debate on Wednesday in which they look certain to back calls for the inquiry to hold sessions in public "whenever possible".

A Tory motion that is certain to win wide cross-party backing also calls for the membership of the committee to be widened to include military experts. The Lib Dems are demanding that it also include constitutional and legal experts to assess the legality of the invasion.

In a sign that the government is preparing a full-scale retreat, Chilcot is to meet both the Conservative leader, David Cameron, and Clegg on Tuesday, before the Commons debate.

MPs believe that he may then announce a bigger public element to the inquiry in order to avoid the house humiliating the prime minister by forcing the changes on him.

Chilcot will come under pressure from both leaders to open up the inquiry to the public. Clegg will want a guarantee that witnesses such as Blair can be summoned to give evidence under oath, while Cameron will ask if the committee can issue an interim report early next year, ahead of a likely spring election.

The Tories say that, if Brown does not order a U-turn, an incoming Conservative government will "reserve the right" to widen its scope and increase its powers where necessary after an election.

Sir Christopher Meyer, a former ambassador in Washington who is likely to be called to give evidence to the inquiry, yesterday added his voice to calls for a public inquiry. "I think it should also have powers of subpoena and people should give evidence on oath," he said. "I would be perfectly comfortable with that."

He said the case for openness was increased because there had been "a ton of stuff" published in the US, both via official inquiries and in memoirs written by key players, that made public what had previously been confidential. "I would be perfectly happy for the whole embassy archive in Washington [to be disclosed]: I haven't got a problem with that being made available," he added. "Things were very sensitive then, but this is 2009."

On his blog, Alastair Campbell, Blair's former spin doctor, says that, "on balance", he believes Brown was right to order the inquiry to be held in private. "I can see the arguments for both sides - openness and transparency favours a public inquiry, but it may well be that the inquiry will do a better job freed from the frenzy of 24-hour media."

In a letter to the Observer, a group of current and former Labour MPs, headed by Alan Simpson, the chairman of Labour Against the War, demands a complete rethink. "Neither the public nor parliament will understand how the prime minister's 'new era of openness' can begin with an Iraq inquiry held behind closed doors," says the letter.

Five reasons

Iraq war inquiry: Five reasons why a full Gordon Brown U-turn looks inevitable

Amid pressure from both the Commons and the Lords for a public inquiry, the PM appears increasingly likely to reverse his decision for it to be held in private

Posted by Andrew SparrowFriday 19 June 2009 13.09 BSTguardian.co.uk

Alastair Campbell says the Iraq inquiry should be held in private, but it looks as though he's losing the argument.

Gordon Brown has already performed a partial U-turn, suggesting yesterday that he would be happy for the inquiry to hold some meetings in public – but you only have to take a quick look at the politics of the situation to work out that something has got to budge.

For anyone who was preoccupied with MPs' expenses yesterday, here are five reasons why I think Brown is going to have to make further compromises.

1. The Commons wants a public inquiry

This hasn't had much publicity, but yesterday the (Labour-dominated) Commons public administration committee published a strong report criticising the format proposed by Brown. This was its key finding:

While we welcome the government's announcement that an inquiry into Iraq will be held, that it will have a broad scope, and that it will aim to learn lessons from the decision to go to war, the conflict and its aftermath, there is a strong risk that the inquiry as currently constituted will not be able to pursue what should be its fundamental purpose: to identify the truth and ensure that the executive can be held properly accountable for its decisions and conduct in relation to Iraq.

Tony Wright, the committee's chairman (and the man Brown has just asked to recommend ways of making the Commons operate more effectively), said this:

It is also crucial that the inquiry be conducted openly and in public, and that Parliament has a role in establishing it. Only an open, legitimate and credible process of this kind will satisfy a sceptical public that this inquiry is not a whitewash.

2. The Lords wants a public inquiry

We've covered yesterday's Lords debate on Iraq, but it is worth reading the speeches in full because they show that there is very strong support in the Lords for a full public inquiry.

Here's Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary who chaired the inquiry into the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war:

I do not find the national security arguments in favour of an inquiry in private convincing.

The review that I chaired published verbatim the government's intelligence assessments on which the decision to go to war was based. If there is confidential material – for example, about discussions with allies – or if there are witnesses who are prepared to speak openly only in private, it would be possible for the inquiry to hold in camera sessions for that purpose.

Nor am I persuaded by the arguments that an open inquiry would be a field day for lawyers. Not every inquiry has to be like the Saville inquiry [into Bloody Sunday] and, if witnesses need protection from the inquiry, they need protection whether it is in public or in private.

So I reluctantly conclude that the form of the inquiry proposed by the government has been dictated more by their political interest than by the national interest,and that it cannot achieve the purpose of purging mistrust which so many peoplehope for from it.

And here's the former law lord Lord Steyn:

I fear that the arrangements for an inquiry into the Iraq war and its terms of reference are patently unacceptable.

The absence of powers of subpoena is a grave flaw. The imposition of total secrecy by the prime minister is inappropriate.

The explanation that it will ensure, for example, that the evidence of serving and former ministers will be as "full and candid as possible" lets the cat out of the bag.

The condition that the committee "will not set out to apportion blame" is truly absurd. It means that if the committee considers that the previous prime minister and the cabinet were to blame, it is not entitled to find accordingly.

3. The military seem to be in favour of a public inquiry

The former head of the army General Sir Mike Jackson said yesterday that the inquiry hearings should be held in public "wherever possible" if Brown wants it to reassure the public.

4. Brown has started to shift already

The prime minister made an initial compromise yesterday. Commenting on it in the Lords debate, the Foreign Office minister, Lord Malloch-Brown said:

It is not correct that we have moved to a public inquiry but, in our anxiety that this inquiry enjoy public support, we wish to give those leading it as much discretion as possible.

5. If Brown doesn't move further, he will probably be defeated in the Commons

The Tories have tabled a motion for debate in the Commons on Wednesday. It says:

That this House, while welcoming the announcement by the government of an inquiry into the war in Iraq, believes that the proceedings of the committee of inquiry should whenever possible be held in public; and that the membership of the committee should be wider and more diverse than the government has proposed, and calls on the government to revise its proposals for the inquiry to meet these and other objections raised by hon members and to submit proposed terms of reference for it to the House on a substantive motion for full debate and scrutiny.

This is almost exactly what the public administration committee is calling for. The Lib Dems will vote with the Tories, and they seem to have the support of large numbers of Labour MPs.

The government recently lost a vote over the Gurkhas on an opposition day debate and, unless Brown offers further concessions, this seems likely to happen again.

Tony Wright, the Labour public administration committee chair, said today:

My sense is that there will be further developments in the government's position. I would be very surprised if that were not the case.

Richard Ingrams - Historians

Home > Opinion > Columnists > Richard Ingrams

Richard Ingrams’s Week: No one talks nonsense quite like a historian

Saturday, 20 June 2009

Sir Martin Gilbert, the allegedly distinguished historian who is one of those appointed to investigate the Iraq war, has let it be known that one day in the future Bush and Blair might be seen in the same light as Roosevelt and Churchill. A good example of the rule that when it comes to talking nonsense it's hard to beat a historian.

Journalists have always been a more reliable source of information, and thanks to their efforts we now know the answers about Blair, sexed-up dossiers, his lies about the weapons of mass destruction. I myself have a large collection of books which tell me all I want to know on the subject.

There is, however, still a mystery about Iraq, which is why any inquiry into the war should begin by questioning Americans. It was, after all, their war and it was their president who started it. We, in the person of our sanctimonious Prime Minister Blair, merely tagged along.

Why did the Americans invade? We still don't know. Even Bush's director of policy at the state department Richard Haass has said that "he would go to his grave not knowing the answer". Some people insist that it was all about oil, others that preserving the security of Israel was a prime factor.

These are questions that Brown's committee can be relied on not to pursue – least of all the question of any Israeli involvement. Like his fellow historian Lawrence Freedman, who also sits on the inquiry, Sir Martin Gilbert is a committed Zionist and he would be most unwilling to consider anything that might disturb his absurd conception of Blair and Bush as a latter-day Churchill and FDR.

MAC

Friday, June 19, 2009

Reversing (off?) course

Senior military officers and peers welcome decision to hear evidence in public

By Andrew Grice and Kim Sengupta

Friday, 19 June 2009

Gordon Brown climbed down yesterday in the face of a growing revolt over his announcement that the inquiry into the Iraq war would be held in private.

Only three days after saying the investigation would be held behind closed doors, the Prime Minister disclosed that some hearings could take place in public after all. His retreat was revealed exclusively in The Independent yesterday.

In a letter to the inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, Mr Brown asked him to consider holding some sessions in public. He urged Sir John to hold an open session to "explain in greater depth the significant scope and breadth of the inquiry" and to meet relatives of the servicemen killed in Iraq – either in public or in private – to explain how it would operate. He also asked him to take evidence on oath.

The U-turn came on a day in which the Government's original decision came under fierce attack. Lord Butler of Brockwell, the former cabinet secretary who investigated the intelligence about Iraqi weapons, said: "There is no prospect that an inquiry conducted entirely in private can purge the national feeling of mistrust.

"I reluctantly conclude that the form of the inquiry proposed by the Government has been dictated more by the Government's political interest than the national interest."

His searing criticism in a House of Lords debate was echoed by several other peers. And in a rare intervention in British politics, the former prime minister Sir John Major said: "The arrangements currently proposed run the risk of being viewed sceptically by some, and denounced as a whitewash by others. I am astonished the Government cannot understand this."

Last night Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the former Lord Chancellor and a close ally of Tony Blair, also voiced his displeasure at the plans to keep proceedings behind closed doors. Appearing on the BBC's Question Time he said: "If we're going to have an inquiry at all, it's got to be largely in public. There are so many lingering issues that if it's not done in public people won't have confidence in [it]."

The Prime Minister's spokesman insisted that a private investigation had never been a "theological issue". Mr Brown, in Brussels for a summit of EU leaders, told The Independent: "I am in favour of openness and transparency and we balance that with the interests of national security and the desire of people to give the information they want to the inquiry."

The furore exposed signs of tension in the Cabinet over the issue. Allies of the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, accused the Schools Secretary, Ed Balls, of point-scoring, trying to undermine Mr Miliband and of occupying the "moral high ground" by calling on Wednesday for the inquiry to be as open as possible. A diplomatic source said: "One cannot help feeling that Ed Balls saw that a lot of Labour backbenchers would be against the format and tried to exploit the situation – surprising considering how close he is to Gordon Brown."

Mr Balls's subsequent claim that what he had meant was that he was in favour of the public giving evidence to the inquiry, rather than making the proceedings public, was described by one Foreign Office source as "disingenuous" and "laughable".

Ministers accused Mr Balls of flexing his muscles after Mr Brown dropped a plan to install him as chancellor two weeks ago. Mr Balls has taken a more upbeat line on future levels of health and education spending than the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, who kept his job in the ministerial shake-up.

William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said that Mr Brown's concessions did not go far enough. "We need to see a proper U-turn by the Prime Minister, not a half-hearted measure, in order to ensure that this inquiry is conducted in the way that the public and Parliament of this country deserve," he said.

Brown allies accused the Tories of "playing politics", saying they had told the Government they would support evidence being heard in private and then pulled the rug from under it.

Senior military officers welcomed the Prime Minister's climbdown.

Major General Julian Thompson, the former commander of the Royal Marines, said: "It is a pity that the Government could not foresee the disquiet which would be caused by the initial decision to hold the inquiry in private. The Independent deserves much credit for generating a debate on the matter and questioning the need for this kind of secrecy. I think it is common sense that the public has the right to as much information as possible." General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the Army at the time of the invasion, stressed that the sessions "must be heard in public whenever possible" to ensure "that there was no public suspicion of a cover up".

Major General Tim Cross, one of the British officers most extensively involved in the campaign, said: "I am personally very pleased that the committee has now been allowed the right to hear evidence in public. This is certainly a step in the right direction."

Text of Gordon Brown's letter to Sir John Chilcot

1O DOWNING STREETLONDON SW1A 2AA

THE PRIME MINISTER

17 June 2009

Dear Sir John

I would like to thank you for agreeing to Chair the Iraq Inquiry As I said in Parliament, I believe this Inquiry will, through lessons learned, strengthen our diplomacy, our military and our democracy I am fully committed to a thorough and independent inquiry, and guarantee the full co-operation of the Government As Privy Counsellors, you will have unhindered access to government documents. I have written to all relevant current and former Ministers to underline the importance of their full cooperation. And the Cabinet Secretary is writing to departments to underline the need for full transparency,

It is essential that all those appearing before the Inquiry do so with the greatest possible candour and openness, and that the Inquiry itself proceeds as efficiently as possible, while maintaining full public confidence in the integrity of the process and without in any way damaging national security Once you have met, as I have suggested, the Leaders of the other political parties and the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Select Committees it would be helpful if you could set out how you and your colleagues think these objectives can best be met in the way that the Inquiry is conducted.

I hope as part of this that you will consider whether it is possible for there to be a process whereby they give their contributions on oath

It is also essential that the families of those who gave their lives in Iraq are properly consulted on the nature of the inquiry. I hope therefore that you will be able to meet them as part of the preparations and as you continue your work, to explain how you are proceeding. This could be, at their request, in public or private

-2-

Once you have established your plans in more detail, I would encourage you to hold an open session to explain in greater depth the significant scope and breadth of the inquiry

I wish you and your Committee well with your important task, and look forward to your conclusions.

Adam Price MP/AS

LOCAL MP Adam Price who led the bid to impeach Tony Blair over the Government’s decision to invade Iraq has slammed the decision to hold an inquiry into the war behind closed doors.

Mr Price also described that the timing of the inquiry, due to report back after a general election when Labour would probably no longer be in power, as "unacceptable".

He said: "I am absolutely astonished that the Prime minister has once again misjudged the public mood. "There are some serious questions that need to be asked and the general public, many of whom have family serving in the armed forces, deserve to have a public and open inquiry.

"It is difficult to accept the Labour government’s claims to be transparent when they are trying to keep this report under wraps.

"Delaying the results until after a General Election is simply farcical."

Quite apart from the fact that holding the proposed Iraq war inquiry in secret is morally unacceptable, it is surely yet another tactical disaster as the Government is sure to be defeated nest Wednesday when the following Opposition motion is to be debated:

That this House, while welcoming the announcement by the Government of an Inquiry into the war in Iraq, believes that the proceedings of the Committee of Inquiry should whenever possible be held in public; and that the membership of the Committee should be wider and more diverse than the Government has proposed, and calls on the Government to revise its proposals for the Inquiry to meet these and other objections raised by hon. Members and to submit proposed terms of reference for it to the House on a substantive motion for full debate and scrutiny.

The one criticism that I would make of the Conservatives is that they could have made this a genuinely cross-party motion (as we did in the original Iraq inquiry debate three years ago) so as to maximise Labour support. Nevertheless I still think that sufficient Labour rebels are incensed enough on this occasion to overcome their usual distaste to joining the Tories in the lobby. The publication of the Public Administration Committee’s report following their seminar last week on the scope of the Iraq war inquiry is almost certain to add further to the pressure on the Government to cave in. I predict a last-minute U-turn or a second Government defeat in six weeks. Can this Government really limp on till next May with a PM who so clearly lacks judgment?

Lord Falconer

Former cabinet minister Lord Falconer has joined calls for the Iraq inquiry to be held "largely" in public.

The ex Lord Chancellor told BBC One's Question Time: "If it is not done in public, then people will not have confidence in relation to the inquiry".

Downing Street said on Thursday that Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not object to public sessions.

Mr Brown initially said the inquiry would be held in private - sparking widespread criticism.

He said the inquiry would hear evidence in private so witnesses could be "as full and as candid as possible".

But pressed on Thursday about the growing calls for it to be held in public, the prime minister's official spokesman said it would be up to inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot to "consider how the precise format of the inquiry should be structured to ensure that the objectives are met".

Lord Falconer, formerly one of Tony Blair's closest allies in government, who was drafted into the cabinet in the period after the invasion of Iraq, conceded that some aspects may have to be held in private on grounds of national security.

But he added: "I think the Iraq war is one of the major events in British politics - if we are going to have an inquiry at all, then I think it's got to be largely in public."

'No difference'

Meanwhile, Alastair Campbell, who was director of communications at Number 10 when the Iraq conflict began, has said it "frankly won't make any difference" to critics of the war if the inquiry was held in private.

At a fund-raising event at the House of Commons on Thursday night, Mr Campbell said opponents of the conflict had already made up their mind, whatever comes out of the inquiry.

The prime minister has told the chairman of the inquiry, Sir John Chilcott, that he can decide to hold public sessions if he chooses.

Gordon Brown had written to Sir John to say that the families of those who died in Iraq may wish to give evidence and it would be up to Sir John to decide at their request whether to hold public sessions, his spokesman said.

Mr Brown had also asked Sir John to consider whether witnesses would give evidence under oath.

A growing number of public figures have called for the inquiry to be in public, following the prime minister's statement on Monday.

'Purging mistrust'

Former Conservative prime minister Sir John Major said the findings risked being denounced as a "whitewash" and said the decision to hold it in private was "inexplicable".

General Sir Michael Jackson, who was head of the Army during the 2003 Iraq invasion, told the BBC it "must be open wherever possible".

Lord Butler, a former cabinet secretary who headed a 2004 inquiry into the use of intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war also called public hearings.

He told peers: "I reluctantly conclude that the form of the inquiry proposed by the government has been dictated more by the government's political interest than the national interest and it cannot achieve the purpose of purging mistrust."

Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have been pressing for some hearings to be held in public.

MPs will debate a Tory motion next week calling for the inquiry's proceedings to be held in public "whenever possible".

The inquiry will cover the period from July 2001 to July 2009. Hearings will start next month and take at least a year.

Lord Butler

To call attention to the Iraq invasion and lessons for the future; and to move for Papers.

[]

Lord Butler of Brockwell (Crossbench)

My Lords, I join the congratulations and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for giving the House the opportunity to hold this very timely debate.

The Government's political interest in an inquiry in the form proposed by the Prime Minister is obvious. The Government have conceded the inquiry which they promised, and the arrangements proposed for it ensure that we will hear no more about it until after the general election. The question is whether the Government have allowed their political interest to overcome the national interest.

There must be two purposes to a further inquiry. One is to learn lessons from the policy decisions taken in connection with the Iraq war. The second is to act as a sort of truth and reconciliation process for those, including the bereaved, who think that they were misled, even deceived, about the Government's reasons for joining the war. I think it possible, indeed probable, that an inquiry on the lines proposed can suggest useful policy lessons from the war. Certainly, I make no criticism in that respect of the distinguished people appointed to the inquiry, particularly its chairman, for whom I have a very high regard. But there is no prospect that an inquiry conducted entirely in private can purge the national feeling of mistrust.

I do not find the national security arguments in favour of an inquiry in private convincing. The review that I chaired published verbatim the Government's intelligence assessments on which the decision to go to war was based. If there is confidential material—for example, about discussions with allies—or if there are witnesses who are prepared to speak openly only in private, it would be possible for the inquiry to hold in camera sessions for that purpose. Nor am I persuaded by the arguments that an open inquiry would be a field day for lawyers. Not every inquiry has to be like the Saville inquiry and, if witnesses need protection from the inquiry, they need protection whether it is in public or in private. So I reluctantly conclude that the form of the inquiry proposed by the Government has been dictated more by their political interest than by the national interest, and that it cannot achieve the purpose of purging mistrust which so many people hope for from it.

There is an additional point for Parliament, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. There are many differences from the circumstances in which the Franks inquiry into the Falklands War was established, but there is one crucial difference. That inquiry was set up with the support and participation of all parties in Parliament. In this case it is clear that neither the Official Opposition, nor the Liberal Democrat party, nor many government Back-Benchers, nor many noble Lords who have spoken on this side today are happy about an inquiry conducted entirely in private. It is therefore doubtful whether the form of the inquiry, if submitted to a vote in Parliament, would obtain a majority. The question arises: should the form of an inquiry into the actions of the Government be determined exclusively by the Government?

On 6 July 1982 the then Prime Minister announced the membership and terms of reference of the Franks inquiry. On 8 July 1982, two days later, she moved a motion seeking Parliament's approval and a substantial debate followed before the motion was passed. So I ask the Minister: will the Government similarly seek Parliament's approval for this inquiry, or does the Prime Minister's pledge to return power to Parliament not stretch to giving it the opportunity to approve and, if it wishes, to amend the proposal for the inquiry? If the Prime Minister's decision to return power to Parliament does not stretch to that, it now looks likely that the opposition parties in another place will, next week, take matters into their own hands and pass an amendment seeking that the inquiry should be conducted in public. I suggest that that is not the way in which these things should be done.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Pressure builds on Brown

Iraq Inquiry Hearings May Be PublicSky News - ‎22 minutes ago‎This afternoon Lord Butler, head of the last official inquiry into Iraq, will make a statement accusing the Government of putting its own interest ahead of ...

UK may allow public hearings in Iraq war inquiryPR-Inside.com (Pressemitteilung) - ‎38 minutes ago‎AP LONDON (AP) - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says he'll allow the head of a new inquiry into the Iraq war to decide whether some sessions should be ...

The Iraq inquiry debate won't go awayguardian.co.uk - ‎44 minutes ago‎There is an option open to those angered by the nature of the Iraq inquiry proposed by Brown. That is it to draw up a legal challenge by demanding a ...

Brown: Iraq inquiry can be in publicThis is London - ‎56 minutes ago‎Gordon Brown caved in to huge pressure today as he signalled that the Iraq war inquiry could be partially held in public. In what critics immediately dubbed ...

U-turn on Iraq war inquiry?Channel 4 News - ‎1 hour ago‎By Gary Gibbon The process of gathering evidence in the government's Iraq war inquiry could now be held in public. The inquiry, which was announced on ...

Iraq probe 'may be partly public'BBC News - ‎1 hour ago‎Prime Minister Gordon Brown has told the man heading up an independent inquiry into Iraq that he can decide to hold public sessions if he chooses. ...

No 10 u-turn over Iraq war inquiryThe Press Association - ‎2 hours ago‎Downing Street has appeared to open the way for some hearings in the Iraq War inquiry to be held in public. The Prime Minister's spokesman said that it had ...

Brown may back down over Iraq inquiryePolitix - ‎2 hours ago‎Gordon Brown is considering a U-turn over the Iraq inquiry, according to reports today. The prime minister, who has been criticised for keeping the inquiry ...